[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, what ever degree of support for "terrorism" reps can summon up, it will still be much much much much much much less than the support offered by other countries such as Iran Syria and N Korea.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but those three countries aren't subject to UNSCR 678 as a result of being defeated in the Gulf War.

We had a unique opportunity with Iraq in that we had a clear resolution in place that they violated, and we had an open-ended enforcement clause.

I'm not saying it was "right", but that is exactly why it is what it is and it isn't one of those other states.

[ QUOTE ]

So on the supporting terrorism rational there are at least 2 or 3 countries that should have been invaded before Iraq.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and truth be told, if we had a similar plausible excuse to do so, such as we had in Iraq with UNSCR 678, then those 2-3 countries would have been at the front of the line.

[ QUOTE ]

To attempt to use Bush's rationalisations for the war in Iraq is just blatently calling black white.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not calling black - white. Iraq supported terrorism, and they violated the terms of the UN Resolutions in place as a result of their defeat in the Gulf War. That's calling it exactly like it is.

Is that reason enough for war? For regime change? Who knows. I am not to judge that...but at the very least, that you may loathe Bush is understandable for whatever reasons, but let's not make a saint out of Saddam and pretend that Iraq didn't engage in state-sponsored terrorism or that they didn't violate the resolutions to bolster your opposition to Bush.